Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Amplituhedron]

Ok dumbamp, I know it's hard for you not to lie or to admit you were wrong. I actually said, and I'll repeat this for the 3rd time, saying you can see my fixed future from a distant perspective before it happens to me is like saying that same perspective could then see the earth go dark before the sun goes out.

 

But it isn't. It's not like it at all. Relativity rules out effects happening before causes. You would know this if you understood the spacetime interval, but you don't. Also Sluggo did not "call me out" on anything. He simply critiqued the book world interpretation of relativity. As noted, I was not defending that interpretation, merely explaining Greene's take on it. 

 

You seem to be having a temper tantrum. I guess this means you know you have lost the argument, by your own estimate. 

Edited September 7, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[Amplituhedron]

A more comprehensive argument for the block world by Petkov is here.

 

Don't worry, Ralf, you can skip it. 

[ralfcis]

You're so right. You've earned a seat at the big boy's table. Just one thing, though, you have to wear this special conical cap and face the wall.

[Amplituhedron]

Ralf, you're not a big boy. You're a little man. You are the Donald Trump of the internet! :lol:

[exchemist]

But it isn't. It's not like it at all. Relativity rules out effects happening before causes. You would know this if you understood the spacetime interval, but you don't. Also Sluggo did not "call me out" on anything. He simply critiqued the book world interpretation of relativity. As noted, I was not defending that interpretation, merely explaining Greene's take on it. 

 

You seem to be having a temper tantrum. I guess this means you know you have lost the argument, by your own estimate. 

I think it may be just that Ralfcis, like Dubbelsox, is, apparently, an Asperger's case. Neither of them reacts well to criticism and both of them post wall to wall crap. But for some reason the moderation here doesn't mind, so this forum tends to collect such people, as a result of them being banned everywhere else, I suppose.   

[Vmedvil2]

I think it may be just that Ralfcis, like Dubbelsox, is, apparently, an Asperger's case. Neither of them reacts well to criticism and both of them post wall to wall crap. But for some reason the moderation here doesn't mind, so this forum tends to collect such people, as a result of them being banned everywhere else, I suppose.   

 You know what you give these people a lot of stuff but I don't see you working on anything these two have worked tirelessly to prove the point that they are making, you gotta respect them a little for that type of dedication even if in the end they are no closer to understanding the universe which they will be, at-least they tried in some capacity to expand their knowledge with personal theories in the subject. I have come to respect almost every member of this forum even super polymath for their various views on things which you know polymath is lurking around.

Edited September 7, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

So you're a clinical psychologist, an ex-chemist and an expert on relativity. Expert enough to recognize crap with no basic  mathematical abilities. Good on ya. You're right though, I have no idea why they allow me to stay and say the things I do. Maybe their crap radar is not as fine tuned as yours or maybe they know enough to not see any crap.

 

PS. Why don't you check out whose threads are the 2nd and 3rd most viewed in the past 8 yrs and whose threads are the 2nd and 3rd most replied to for all time on this forum. Must be a lot of flies on this forum because they sure like crap.

Edited September 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Anyways, XC, I had to report you on the basis of a racist post. Putting someone into a group and disparaging them by disparaging the entire group is groupist which is the same as racist. I don't discriminate between all the different types of groupism and every time you surprise me with your seemingly total lack of integrity. Speaking of banning, I hope they ban you because you offer very little besides poking your nose in to tender intermittent nastiness. 

Edited September 7, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Wanted to comment briefly on this:

 

 

Amplituhedron 937;

 

 

 

[Apparently he never worked in a real world bakery. You can't slice bread that hasn't been baked. The block universe is a nonsensical idea, that does not consider new events. and the act of perception. An event occurs once and is perceived multiple times.

 

 

Again, not to especially defend the block world, but your comment here begs the question against it. It assumes what must be proved — that the metaphorical bread has to be baked first, before it rises (before time “moves” from past to future). Greene invites us to consider an already baked loaf that has always been baked and always will be — it’s eternal, hence eternalism (all times exist, as do all locations), in contrast to presentism, which holds that only NOW exists — the past used to exist, but no longer does; the future will exist, but does not yet.

 

But if presentism is correct, now can there multiple, indeed infinite, planes of simultaneity, or “now slices” as Greene calls them?

 

And yes, events only happen once, on any interpretation of SR, so I’m not sure why you would imply that the block world claims otherwise.

 

My biggest beef with the block world is it does not even try to deal with what consciousness is, or how it perceives time to be passing, when under BW it does not pass. Basically, under BW, everything from what Tegmark calls the “bird’s view” — mathematics — tells us that motion and change, even cause and effect, are illusions. But whence the illusion, then? One block world advocate speaks of consciousness “crawling up” our 4D world tubes, but how? If nothing moves or changes, how can consciousness “crawl up” anything at all? Unless and until these questions are addressed, block world, while logical, must remain unscientific and philosophically dubious, IMO. 

[ralfcis]

Hmmm can't wait to see two historians and philosophers of science (not to be confused with those  who know science) go at it.

[ralfcis]

Ok, my popcorn's gotten stale so I'll just continue my explorations into real physics instead of watching some theological historical philosophy yawn.

 

This train/MMX/football example is tough so I'll start piece by piece drawing the whole picture. The first rule that can't be violated (but Einy does anyway) is two co-located clocks that have not frame jumped must read the same time. So an STD that starts with Bob and Alice co-located or one that starts with them separated and they unite, must read the same times when together. They are actually the same STD  just drawn upside down relative to one another so they have no choice but to agree that co-located clocks share the same causal present, clock time and no perspective can say any different.

 

The second rule is that separated clocks at the start also share the same causal present on the same causal line of simultaneity. Einstein didn't have a concept of causal simultaneity. He made the mistake that separated clocks can share the same present on a perspective line of simultaneity. This mathematically breaks rule one so his assumption is indeed wrong. I'll show you what these words mean on an STD which doesn't make things any clearer for those who can't read them.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/R7nAVGy53YrDLjsT8

 

This picture of an argyle sock top represents the causal time  STD of the train through the station example. The green lines are the causal lines of simultaneity which join Bob and Alice's proper times. The bottom green line syncs the front and rear train clocks to zero. Einstein uses Alice's perspective to sync the clocks which forces the clocks to read different values at co-location. This can only happen if a frame jump occurs and can't happen during constant relative velocity which is what's happening here. 

 

The train's proper length is 2 ls. We know this because the light signals from the ends of the train to the middle travel for 1 sec to the stationary platform so they are not lengthened or shortened by the train's velocity. They are the 1st yellow light signal from the left and the 2nd pink light signal. They are the light signals that would travel through the MMX's stationary tube which has no relative motion to the light as the other tube should have had.

 

Let's analyse the rear of the train first. Alice and Bob both throw their footballs causally simultaneously at t=0 on their clocks and Alice takes off running at .6c towards Bob's football. But there's a problem. According to Bob's perspective, Alice threw her football and started running .33 sec  at the 1 ls separation before Bob threw his football. Alice gets a free head start due to Bob's line of simultaneity and she only runs .667 - .267 (.33 s Bob's time) = .4 sec Alice's time = .5 sec Bob's time. The pink light travelling to her also takes .5 sec Bob's time for a total of 1 sec for her to catch the ball. The original distance was 1 ls so 1 ls/ 1 sec = c preserved due to Bob's perspective taking .33 sec out of Alice's running time.

 

The yellow light signal from the train to the platform reached the platform at .67 causal time and the pink light signal from the platform to the train reached the end of the train at .67 causal time which is causally simultaneous. (Causal time is independent of perspective.)

From Alice's perspective she caught the football at .67 her time which had a velocity of c relative  to her (unaffected by her velocity towards the football) but from Bob's perspective ( blue line) she caught it at .5 sec his time. This does not mean he saw her catch it before she caught it, it means their watches saw the same catch at different times on their watches. Don't know how Einy could have possibly interpreted this as Bob seeing Alice catch the ball before she caught the ball. In causal simultaneity the catch was instantaneously simultaneous and the times on the watches do not represent a causal present.

 

The above shows how the MMX  proved motion of one tube towards the light did not add to the relative velocity of the light. Alice's velocity towards the light did not affect her relative velocity to the football she caught because Bob's perspective gave her a head start cutting down her running time. 

 

Next will see how the math plays out for the perspectives using causal time as the basis of the analysis. Einy's analysis allowed for the lines of simultaneity to be zero but, in fact,  only the causal simultaneity line can be zero and satisfy the rule that co-located clocks with no frame jumps must register the same time upon co-location.

Edited September 9, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok here's the complete picture with all the perspectives drawn for the train/MMX/football example. Everything just meshes together beautifully. It's a little bit  liney so I'll have to break it down into separate STD's for my coming explanation. One thing to notice is how the train, which is 2 ls long in proper length, looks shrunk from the platform perspective (1.6 ls) and elongated (2.5 ls) from the train's perspective. Einy interpreted this shrinking and stretching of the train as it came into the station to be length contraction. No one saw the nonsense of a seemingly rubber train so I'll explain what's really happening. (Hint: it's all about how perspective simultaneity manipulates time duration and has nothing to do with length.)

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/TUcwi4oyNgEo8ED77

 

What an ultramaroon. He copied a concept from Lorentz because it was popular and then based his entire theory on a wrong concept working with the illusion of time dilation to explain the constancy of c when all along the explanation was simultaneity and perspective hiding time. He wasn't even close. To be fair, it really wasn't easy to see the truth here.

Edited September 9, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Nobody reads or understands these STD's so I'll just start on the description of the last one without bothering to break it up.

 

The left is the train going into the station or Alice running towards Bob to catch the football. Using the green line of causal simultaneity, Alice throws her football and starts running toward Bob .33 sec early from his perspective even though in instantaneous causal time her actions and Bob's throwing the football towards her are simultaneous. This is not Einstein's relativity. His theory was not based on causal simultaneity as a present independent of Bob's or Alice's perspectives. He based his reality on the illusions of Bob's or Alice's perspectives.

 

So in Einstein's relativity, the blue line represents Bob's perspective simultaneity. This is a simultaneity of when Alice throws her football but not when Alice starts running towards him. She starts running .33 sec early just like in the green causal perspective but she throws the football .33 sec after she begins running towards Bob. The blue train has not shrunk but it's like when the rear hits the end of the platform, the center of the platform waits .33 sec before it throws the football simultaneously from Bob's perspective to when Alice throws her football. Because the rear of the train gets a head start, it only travels .5 sec to catch a football that travels .5sec to reach the end of the train. Same as in the causal example, the original separation was 1 ls and the time for the ball to reach Alice as 1 sec so c is preserved. This is the interferometer tube moving through the ether and it shows the relative velocity of the tube to the proposed medium of light did not surpass c. If the tube had been filled with air, it would have caused an increase of the relative velocity to the medium of sound waves so the velocity of the tube would have added to its relative velocity to the sound waves. Yes I am fluidly discussing this as if the train/MMX/football example was all one example. 

 

In Einstein's relativity, the lowest red line represents Alice's perspective simultaneity. This is a simultaneity of when Alice throws her football and starts running early towards Bob from his perspective. She starts running and throwing her football .75 sec early from Bob's perspective but she also starts her run not when the train end aligns with the platform but a full .4167 sec or .25 ls before that happens. The red train has not expanded but it's like when the train rear finally hits the end of the platform, the center of the platform waits .33 sec before it throws the football which is .4167 sec after Alice has thrown her football. The rear of the train doesn't get a head start this time. It has to travel .75 sec Bob's time before Bob even tosses the ball. But because Bob waits .75 sec to toss it,  the train rear only travels .5 sec to catch a football that travels .5sec to reach then end of the train. Same as in the causal example, the original separation was 1 ls and the time for the ball to reach Alice as 1 sec so c is preserved. c is preserved in every case because Bob delays his pass until Alice's remaining run will take the same time as Bob's pass. Alice's passes all take different amounts of time but they always reach the platform's center (Bob) at the same time (accounting for perspective) as Alice catches her ball. 

 

Alice's passing of her football to Bob represents the interferometer's tube that is perpendicular to the ether. This is light's velocity through a stationary ether and a tube with 0 relative velocity to this ether. This was the standard the light's velocity in the moving tube was compared to and because the football Alice passed Bob arrived at the same time the football Bob passed to Alice, the conclusion could only be that any movement relative to c does not surpass c. The second analysis will prove any velocity away from the light does not subtract from the relative velocity to the light (right side of the STD).

 

I know this will be difficult for the art history philosophers of relativistic theology because they can't look up in any of their books how exactly is c the same from all perspectives and how the MMX proves that. They can only quote scripture that says it's a done deal and is the result of length contraction working hand in hand with time dilation. Did anyone see any use of length contraction in this whole discussion? If you can show me a mathematical proof for that, I'd be glad to have a look. Oh yeah, since art history philosophers of relativistic theology don't know any math, they wouldn't be able to recognize what this proof would look like. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I left out one tedious bit of math that had me so stumped I thought I was on the wrong track. The times (.8, .67, .5)where Bob catches Alice's ball don't seem to match up with the time (.67) Alice catches Bob's ball. You needto turn the STD upside down to see what's happening. Set the top to zero and the .8 becomes .533, the .67 remains .67 and the .5 becomes .833. Now the red and blue lines of perspective simultaneity make sense because Alice's perspective of Bob's catch from the blue line of simultaneity is t'/Y = t where t' = .67, Y = 1.25 and t= .533. Alice's perspective of Bob's catch from the red line of simultaneity is t'Y = t where t' = .67, Y = 1.25 and t= .833. 

[ralfcis]

This is a ponderous read and there's no need for most of it if I just stop dealing with perspectives. Causal time is all you need to solve all the problems and it will simplify my search for using DSR to tell time using light signals, real time rates vs apparent ones and explain how relative velocities to light really work in Yv and velocity through time. 

[sluggo]

Amplituhedron;

 

Greene invites us to consider an already baked loaf that has always been baked and always will be — it’s eternal, hence eternalism (all times exist, as do all locations), in contrast to presentism,

 

 

[i criticize/challenge the statement, not the poster, for the reason you mentioned. It may be an idea from someone else.

I've seen Brian Greene on PBS talk about moving in time. For me his interpretation sounds more like fantasy than science. It's also known that scientists are expected to publish and lecture to promote themselves and the organizations that employ them.

 

After 12+ yrs of varied forum participation, my conclusion of why the 100+ yr old SR theory is still debated, especially with so much experimental verification, is misinterpretation, excessive abstraction, and not recognizing it as a theory of perception. Apparently Einstein was content with the mechanics of SR. But it's obvious the observer plays the central role in the theory.

His 'eternal loaf' does not agree with the 'big bang', which itself could have alternate variations. Where does he place new events, like a human birth, a nova, etc. After an event occurs, the only evidence are the images that can be detected. The event is history for everyone, because the universe has extent.

 

No one is wrong all the time, and I agree with Ralf on some things. Science is a religion for some who expect it to solve all their problems. Science has its limitations. It’s philosophy augmented with a system of measurement, its verification tool. It can’t analyze spiritual or intangible things. like ‘how much love will a container hold’?

Regarding .999… on the ‘infinity’ topic, my argument is the same.

[Amplituhedron]

Sluggo, I still don’t understand your objection to the block world. I have stated mine: it does not account for consciousness, or the alleged illusion of passing time. This defect may not be fatal, but I have yet to see a repair.

 

The BW is a theory of perception, or, strictly, a meta-theory of perception. I wonder why you think otherwise. (BW is a meta-theory of SR, just as, for example, Many Worlds is a meta-theory of quantum physics.)

 

You invoke the big bang. What of it? Under the BW, the bang is simply another standard-issue location in spacetime, no different from any other.

 

In Einstein’s original train thought experiment, we find that the ground observer sees lightning flashes happen simultaneously at the front and back of the train, while the train observer sees, first, the flash at the front of the train, and then sometime later, the flash at the back.

 

What are we to make of this? It seems straightforward: In a meaningful sense, the ground observer has seen the train observer’s future. The train observer, even before he/she knows it, is going to encounter a flash at the back of the train, but just can’t predict this fact. He/she is not going to encounter a tortilla there, or a banana, or nothing at all. It’s going to be lightning flash.

 

Hence the future, for all of us, is as fixed and unalterable as the past. That is the essence of the BW. Minkowski mooted this first and Einstein seems to have accepted it later. Greene is just explicating the idea.